Final Panthers Mock Draft

[zacka77ack]

Peat looked so out of shape at the combine...that's a huge concern for me. How do you show up to the biggest job interview of your life, at time when you should be in the best shape of your life, and get winded so easily...

[Bartin]

Peat looked so out of shape at the combine...that's a huge concern for me. How do you show up to the biggest job interview of your life, at time when you should be in the best shape of your life, and get winded so easily...

 

He lacks stamina. It shows up on tape too. I think it's a result of him having a different body composition than most males. His body stores fat in his legs rather than his gut so everytime he moves he has to expend more energy lugging those big tree trunk legs around.

[SOJA]

I thought J Jones was pretty adamant we wouldn't draft Humphries in the first round?

[mbarbour21]

That'd probably bring the idiotic "Gettleman wants to sabotage Cam" silliness up again.

I wonder how many of the 'need more weapons' crowd understand that a dominant defense actually is a weapon for a young QB, and oftentimes can be their best friend. Ditto solid special teams.

Defense isn't just about preventing the other team from scoring. It's also about getting the ball back in the hands of your offense. Likewise special teams is about putting your offense in the best position possible.

Ya gotta look at the whole picture.

Yep, it works both ways. We need a good defense/STs to give is better field position and keep the opposing team from scoring, but we need to give him weapons so our offense can score. I really want an offensive pick. Infact, I would love if the first three picks fell OT, WR, then RB. (Or some variation) However, we don't need to reach either. We need to get the best guy. (Within reason)

[Mr. Scot]

Yep, it works both ways. We need a good defense/STs to give is better field position and keep the opposing team from scoring, but we need to give him weapons so our offense can score. I really want an offensive pick. Infact, I would love if the first three picks fell OT, WR, then RB. (Or some variation) However, we don't need to reach either. We need to get the best guy. (Within reason)

Agreed.

[Byrdman4real]

Yep, it works both ways. We need a good defense/STs to give is better field position and keep the opposing team from scoring, but we need to give him weapons so our offense can score. I really want an offensive pick. Infact, I would love if the first three picks fell OT, WR, then RB. (Or some variation) However, we don't need to reach either. We need to get the best guy. (Within reason)

I agree, it's great to have a great defense and ST, but the offense needs help. I'm tired of our defense doing so much and holding teams like the Seahawks, but our offense can't put any numbers on the board no matter how good our field position is.

[Mage]

That'd probably bring the idiotic "Gettleman wants to sabotage Cam" silliness up again.

I wonder how many of the 'need more weapons' crowd understand that a dominant defense actually is a weapon for a young QB, and oftentimes can be their best friend. Ditto solid special teams.

Defense isn't just about preventing the other team from scoring. It's also about getting the ball back in the hands of your offense. Likewise special teams is about putting your offense in the best position possible.

Ya gotta look at the whole picture.

 

I tend to agree with you.  However, defensive tackle is down there with quarterback and middle linebacker of positions we absolutely do not need.  At least not in the first round.  I like Goldman, but not when we already have two young, very good (with the potential to become great very, very soon) defensive tackles already on the roster.  We are not in a position where we should be making picks like that - we simply have too many other needs on the roster that a luxury pick like that would not be beneficial.  It doesn't make sense as a current need nor would it make sense going forward considering our youth and talent at the position.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to a defensive tackle in the second round, but there will be several better options in the first.

 

Like you, I wouldn't be mad if we went defense.  Just not at defensive tackle.  That would be moronic.  I mean, of course if a player like Leonard Williams fell to us... that changes things, but that isn't happening.

[Mr. Scot]

I tend to agree with you. However, defensive tackle is down there with quarterback and middle linebacker of positions we absolutely do not need. At least not in the first round. I like Goldman, but not when we already have two young, very good (with the potential to become great very, very soon) defensive tackles already on the roster. We are not in a position where we should be making picks like that - we simply have too many other needs on the roster that a luxury pick like that would not be beneficial. It doesn't make sense as a current need nor would it make sense going forward considering our youth and talent at the position.

I wouldn't be opposed to a defensive tackle in the second round, but there will be several better options in the first.

Like you, I wouldn't be mad if we went defense. Just not at defensive tackle. That would be moronic. I mean, of course if a player like Leonard Williams fell to us... that changes things, but that isn't happening.

Agree we have two great DTs, but the guys behind them are getting up there.

Would you disagree that it's very possible a defensive tackle could indeed be the BPA at 25?

[Mage]

Would you disagree that it's very possible a defensive tackle could indeed be the BPA at 25?

 

Eh, it's possible depending on who you ask.  There are a couple of DTs (sans Leonard Williams, because there is a snowballs chance in hell that would happen unless unexpected character or health issues arise) that, if they fell to our pick at 25, could be argued as BPA (not sure I would agree, but alas).  However, the question truly is... are they good enough to the point that the difference between them and the next prospect is large enough to warrant drafting them despite our fortunes at the position currently?  The answer to that is no.  

 

I'm not saying I would be outraged if we took Goldman.  Me personally, I don't get up in arms about that kind of stuff.  I just think there will be better options at 25, and far better options when you consider the situation.

[Mr. Scot]

Eh, it's possible depending on who you ask. There are a couple of DTs (sans Leonard Williams, because there is a snowballs chance in hell that would happen unless unexpected character or health issues arise) that, if they fell to our pick at 25, could be argued as BPA (not sure I would agree, but alas). However, the question truly is... are they good enough to the point that the difference between them and the next prospect is large enough to warrant drafting them despite our fortunes at the position currently? The answer to that is no.

I'm not saying I would be outraged if we took Goldman. Me personally, I don't get up in arms about that kind of stuff. I just think there will be better options at 25, and far better options when you consider the situation.

Fair enough.

[panthers34]

Since we already told Oher he is our left tackle, what would we do if we drafted Peat? 

 

Would we move Peat to RT or just screw over Oher? 

[scarface]

Since we already told Oher he is our left tackle, what would we do if we drafted Peat? 

 

Would we move Peat to RT or just screw over Oher? 

 

I think Peat may start at RT and then move to LT.

[Kuech the Sneak]

Would love peat or collins

[Mr. Scot]

I think Peat may start at RT and then move to LT.

That's a common path.

Gross did it.